August 1, 2009

City of Springfield’s CWLP Dallman 4 Earns POWER’s Highest Honor

Dr. Robert Peltier, PE

The Keys to Success

Dallman 4 is expected to perform its final acceptance tests about August 31. CWLP will take ownership of the plant at the successful completion of all plant acceptance tests — including those of the AQCS equipment — and certification of the test results. Final acceptance of Dallman 4 should occur in September 2009 — months prior to the April 2010 completion date that the project schedule required.

From CWLP’s perspective, one of the keys to the success of this project was picking the right team to design and build Dallman 4 (Figure 7). Early in 2005, Kiewit Power Constructors Co. and Black & Veatch Corp. formed a joint venture known as KBV Springfield Power Partners, the design/build team to construct Dallman 4. Black & Veatch provided the engineering design, procurement of major equipment, and start-up; Kiewit was the primary contractor for construction of the facility. Glenn Miltenberger, the KBV project manager, also noted that the Kiewit construction staff was relatively young. Even though the average age was about 30, the staff was very dedicated and motivated, which led to the project’s success.

7.    Dream team. The project team celebrated the successful start-up of Dallman 4 with a June 26 reception. Courtesy: CWLP. Photo by Terry Farmer Photography

The second key to the project’s success was the quality of the craft labor. Central Illinois Building and Construction Trades Council and the Basic Crafts Council of Mid-Central Illinois supplied the project with skilled craft labor. Teamwork did not stop with KBV and CWLP; it included developing a successful relationship between KBV management and craft labor. The labor leadership was able to supply experienced craft labor during the tight labor market that existed during the peak of construction.

The third key to the project’s success was the negotiation of an EPC contract that locked in 2005 prices for materials and leveraged KBV’s efficiency in managing the overall project. These may have been the most important of the thousands of decisions that were required of CWLP over the next four years.

Other major contractors and equipment suppliers are listed in Table 3.

Table 3.    Major contractors and equipment suppliers to CWLP Dallman Unit 4. Source: CWLP

As expected, the project team encountered and overcame numerous obstacles and challenges during the design and construction of Dallman 4. The first, and perhaps largest, management challenge was determining the right course of action when the facility’s air permit, scheduled for release in early 2006, was delayed until December 2006 when the Sierra Club intervened in the process. The technical challenge was to improve the design of the AQCS to meet even tighter emissions standards that were a result of the Sierra Club agreement at a point when project engineering and procurement were more than 50% complete. Compounding the schedule problems, KBV already had mobilized key construction personnel, a substantial amount of equipment had been delivered to the site, and the team was ready to begin construction when issuance of the air permit was delayed.

Rather than lose even more time due to the air permit delay, CWLP took the bold step of instructing KBV to continue with the design and purchasing of AQCS and other long-lead-time equipment while waiting for the air permit. Although very risky at the time, the decision to release KBV was, in retrospect, perhaps the best single decision CWLP made on the entire project. The effect of this decision was to keep engineering and procurement well ahead of construction and to moderate the substantial material commodity cost increases that were plaguing the construction industry at the time. Having the major engineering equipment on site during steel erection also helped accelerate the construction schedule.

By the time construction was allowed to begin, key field personnel were all well acquainted and very familiar with their respective responsibilities. The closeness of the workforce allowed personnel to immediately address — and correct, if necessary — issues identified in the field without additional costs to the owner or the contractor. Having both engineering and procurement well ahead of the actual construction schedule also provided time for detailed drawing reviews and, with the equipment on hand, many constructability issues were eliminated before they became field issues.